20 ms·

The largest market of photography dilettentes (like me) switched to phone. Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software), sharp wide angle withou

The largest market of photography dilettentes (like me) switched to phone. Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software), sharp wide angle without a lot of distortion and ability to zoom without losing too much detail. Besides, most Good Photographs are 90% technique/framing/instinct/editing NOT hardware. (Just get closer to your subject.) "The camera you have with you..", too. So, that only really leaves Pro wedding, sports, and, journalists and that just isn't nearly as big a market as the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism

devbas 5y ago
Personally I really enjoy doing analog photography. As the feedback loop is very long, technique is important. Also, since the number of pictures is limited, I always have to ask myself the question: is there actually a picture here?
- aparticulate 5y ago
  Analog has all the tactile aspects I miss from DSLR and more, I definitely take more analog than I used to. I also think there's a noticable gulf between fake analog and real, even on screen. The most skillful photoshop creations still looks totally off to me. Phone + an old analog camera is an incredible setup imo
noahtallen 5y ago
Definitely true. I did photography as a hobby, but phones match or exceed the performance in many cases now. For example, low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs (T3/T6) by default without having to twiddle with the settings. Of course, you could get better pictures with these cameras, but it takes time and a really good lense! So in other words, it’s just not ideal for quick pictures around the house. I think there are two areas where phone cameras have a lot of room for improvement: sharpness and landscape. By sharpness, I mean that if you zoom into any phone picture, it falls apart very quickly. There is a lot of software optimization hiding how a small sensor can’t actually do that well in the details. By landscape, I mean if you take a picture of a mountain or object in the far distance, you’ll barely be able to see it in the phone because the lenses are so wide. It really makes nature pictures underwhelming :)
- aparticulate 5y ago
  Yeah, that's always dissapointing. Realistically, this is only an editor issue, no viewer can even zoom into a photo on Instagram etc. Even the sharpest Ansel Adams print is subject to the same JPEG compression artifacts. Not sure if the modern hobbyist/entry level print much these days. It's still so nice to zoom deep into my crisp old shots.
  - anta40 5y ago
    These days, those who print their photos are usually: - Couples after finishing their pre-wedding photo sessions - Photography enthusiasts. Some even still have their own darkroom. The rest? Nahh. Printing is a waste of money. We have social medias, which are cheaper and faster.
    - timeon 5y ago
      > who print their photo Print? Who is even looking at photos after taking them. But photos are also used as input for other graphics that can be printed - which is now also less common for reasons you have already mentioned.
  - petre 5y ago
    Ansel Adams and the New Topographics are meant to be seen in a museum. Or at least in a book. Definitely not on Instagram.
- j1elo 5y ago
  > low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs Shouldn't you compare with modern entry-level DSLRs? Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have received over time.
  - jeremyjh 5y ago
    I think the point is more that someone who felt they needed an entry-level DSLR a few years ago can get better performance from their phone today, and doesn't need any camera.
Hamuko 5y ago
>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software) Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.
- aparticulate 5y ago
  It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different reasons) Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-lY6NFABUNu3ZIhB07ag:1642266074358&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw6_PvnbT1AhVvDzQIHQCzCG4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&cshid=1642266095147926&biw=1920&bih=1089&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l... ie hobbyists have very low standards.
- dheera 5y ago
  > Software bokeh isn't really that good though. I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount. Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF. Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis. https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera
- acquacow 5y ago
  The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and they are happy.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    And then people like me come along, point out how bad it looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality of software blur is changed (at least for some time).
petre 5y ago
Agreed. I like phones for photography, the image quality and the optimizations, features are great, but they have shitty ergonomics compared to a real camera. The thing with the phone is that it's always on me and that's what matters in the end. I used many cameras, film and digital from compacts to one of the best 6x7 medium format rangefinder. Just pulled the trigger on a Leica DG 15 mm for micro four thirds, which will probably be my main lens from now on.
- jopsen 5y ago
  It also seems to me that the future is with phones, because manufacturers keep pushing the envelope on phone camera performance. And as fewer people buy standalone cameras, research in better camera will focus on phone camera, since that's where the market is.
  - petre 5y ago
    A phone camera is like a multitool. While it can replace a computer or a camera for 80% of the tasks, doing real work still requires a computer or a camera. There are also physical limitations, as in physics. You won't see too many sports or wildlife photographers doing their job with a phone, but for the majority of people who take selfies and snaps of their food, babies and cats, it's perfect. Also for the creative types and new media.
vagrantJin 5y ago
I agree. DSLR manufacturers never really took phone camera seriously. This hit me when my SO decided to buy a new IPhone over a Sony alpha for her YT channel.
- ghaff 5y ago
  And Canon and Nikon is particular were/are mostly hardware companies who catered to professionals desiring complete creative control. Sure, they stuck on all the various auto modes for the casual users who wanted to use a "real" camera which in all fairness gave them better results than the alternatives even if they weren't exercising a fraction of the camera's capabilities. However, with the last few generations of smartphones, it's really pretty silly to be using a DSLR with a kit lens on full auto. Even food porn or snapshots in low light--which was one of the last day-to-day things that phones really didn't do well--is remarkably good on phones these days.
eyelidlessness 5y ago
Rarely do I find a take that overlaps 100% with my own but here we are.
- eyelidlessness 5y ago
nradov 5y ago
There is still also a niche market for underwater photographers. Housings are available for some smartphones now but the photos are mostly crap due to small sensors and poor integration with external strobes.
- aparticulate 5y ago
  Go Pro results look stunning, come in tiny housing, affordable. Anything more elaborate is no longer hobby-tier.
  - petre 5y ago
    Depends on the hobby. Maybe some people have niche hobbies like using ULF cameras the size of a box truck.
    - aparticulate 5y ago
      The key word is niche. The area that these companies can ONLY afford to cater to. The Canon Rebel users of yore, taking slightly out-of-focus holiday snaps are totally lost to phones.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Nope. Go Pro still images look terrible once you go deeper and lose a bit of natural light. They don't really work with external strobes either. But for video they do fine as long as you have good lights. The preferred hobby tier underwater still camera is now the Olympus TG-6 with a cheap plastic housing.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Sorry but no - if by underwater you mean diving, and not putting your hand 0.5m underwater or similar depth snorkeling. Gopro has tiny sensor and crappy lens and it shows, even if you set the bar of quality as low as phone screen-only. You can end up with reasonably nice pictures from time to time, I've ended up with dozens from all activities I've mentioned (and that's using gopro hero 2 with custom housing in the past, now newer variants), but you will lose many more moments due to rather poor device performance.
UncleMeat 5y ago
It is also true that hobbyists love gadget, even if they don’t really change their hobby capabilities.
ghaff 5y ago
I joke that the number of photos I take is inversely proportional to the expense of my camera system. I shoot most of my photos on my iPhone these days. I sometimes use my Fuji mirrorless system that I have a few lenses for if I want to be a little more serious on a trip--or I'm taking photos for an event, and I have a Full-frame Canon with both very wide and very long glass that I rarely use these days.
jpablo 5y ago
Another big market for dslrs is studio photography. I haven’t come across speedlite/studio strobes that can sync with a phone (tbh I haven’t looked either!) A pro camera with a speedlite pointed at a white ceiling world produce amazing indoor pics everytime, unlike a phone which would be dependent on ambient light quality.
domy 5y ago
I find that the experience of taking photos with an actual camera (be it mirrorless or DSLR) is vastly more engaging and enjoyable than with a phone.
- selectodude 5y ago
  I agree entirely. However the experience of lugging around a camera bag is vastly less enjoyable.
  - alexashka 5y ago
    Look into something like a Fujifilm X100V or Leica Q2 (depending on your budget) A camera should be nice and compact, then it won't be a hassle to have it with you. The problem with modern cameras is they are heavy, bulky, junk build quality, have awful menu systems and don't play nice with your phone or your computer. What a wombo-combo of pain, just to get a nice photo! If you can afford a Q2, all of those problems are addressed. Modern cameras are like writing corporate software in Java. Leica Q2 is like writing short programs in Python. Phones are like using Squarespace to build a website.
    - lovehashbrowns 5y ago
      Hm, I quite like your analogy! I actually just got into photography not too long ago with an R5. Thinking about it now, it really does feel some sorta "corporate." I also considered the fujifilm xt4, all the reviews make me feel as if that'd be a Pythonic kind of camera. After falling in love with the whole photography universe, I hope one day I can experience the COBOL-like world of film. I did grow up when film was around, in the 90s and all that, but my family was too poor and I only ever messed around with disposable cameras and Polaroids. Polaroids themselves are a whole other insanely awesome universe to explore.
  - grujicd 5y ago
    I find the experience of going trough 300 raw images and developing them the worst part of using DSLR and why I prefer modern phones with AI based image processing. But you can’t argue with dslr results though. And when we talk about pro sport photography, well exactly same demands for large aperture, large and variable focal length, high iso with low noise, fast focusing and fast shooter speeds also apply to us amateurs taking pictures of our kids in poorly lit indoor sport events.
yakubin 5y ago
Until you hate noise. Noise makes phones a non-starter (the sensor is too small). Or until you're in non-standard lighting conditions, like a dark night. A year ago I found a mantis on my balcony[1]. I tried to make photos of it with my phone and my compact camera, and all of them were crap due to noise. Several months later I bought myself a DSLR and now I can take pretty good photos in very different lighting conditions. I plan to go further in that direction still and get myself a full-frame camera to get even better photos. Also, stabilising a full-blown camera in hands is a lot easier than stabilising a smartphone. [1]: Mantises aren't really a thing in this part of the world.
- pomian 5y ago
  I was just reading Master and Commander series of books. There is a great scene where Maturin (the surgeon/naturalist) is taking notes while watching a pair of Mantis's mate; they continue while the female bites off the male's head. Now that's the photo we hope you capture!
vmception 5y ago
This isn't about killing off interchangeable lens cameras that look like DSLRs, its about killing off actual DSLRs Theyre just getting rid of the inferior mirror technology, the thing that flips in front of the sensor, not conceding to phones The entire sony a7 line, for example, is still going to be made its kind of a troll discussion but its a good thing to happen because SLRs have been associated with a look or form factor too long and its time for that ambiguity and term to die.
skwirl 5y ago
Completely agree. My DSLR is mostly gathering dust these days - the things I bought it for that phones could not do well at the time were primarily landscapes, low-light photography, and wildlife. My current phone has a wide angle lens that does a great job with landscapes. Phones over the last few years have gotten very good at low light. DSLRs still win here, but not by enough to make it worth lugging around (with a tripod, too). Wildlife is my only remaining use case where the DSLR is still the only viable option as I generally can't get very close to the subject. This seems too niche to keep an entire market afloat, though. I'll also still lug the DSLR out if I have a shot planned out that I want to nail or when I'm asked to take photos of someone's kid. Having the ability to work with raw gives a lot of options for fixing lighting and colors. Today's phones do a fantastic job of getting you 80% of the way there automatically, though.
pkulak 5y ago
Phones have surely gotten better, but boy have they gotten bigger. The iPhone Pro Max is more than halfway to the weight of a X100V, and only 100 grams lighter than my Olympus. I still like having a small phone with me all the time and a camera sometimes. It's nice to not have to have the greatest camera phone available because it's all you're going to shoot with. Plus, phones are just never going to manage decent shots on any focal length that's not wide as hell. I know they have long lenses now, but they are crazy slow and useless in anything but direct sunlight. I mostly take photos of people and almost never choose to shoot wide. Phones cut me right out of how I want to shoot. I've actually started putting a long prime on my camera and using my phone at the same time if I want a landscape. Works pretty darn well.
spoonjim 5y ago
It’s true that most people switched because convenience and marginal cost usually beats quality. That’s how we went from landlines to “can you hear me now.” But I have the latest iPhone and a low end SLR and the SLR blows it out of the water for photos of my kids. All but one of the photos on our wall are from the SLR even though 90% of our overall photos are from the SLR.
0xbadcafebee 5y ago
40x optical zoom point-and-shoot, baby! The only reason I have a dedicated camera anymore. I keep it in a little belt pouch when I'm traveling or even hiking. I want to capture moments, but I don't want it to be my hobby.
jillesvangurp 5y ago
That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. I had one (a Kodak) and I knew absolutely nothing about photography. Point, click, bring the film roll to the store, and whatever you got back was it. Not very different from giving full control to Apple/Google over the creative outcome. And they do a decent job of course. They do some amazing things with the very limited sensors and lenses that these cameras have. But there are limits to that of course. Pro cameras start at a few thousand dollars. Clearly not for everyone but they always were that expensive. And that's before you consider the lenses. The type of person that spends 2000 dollar on a lens that only works in very specific situations is never going to be satisfied by an iphone. Most amateurs with ambition fall into the pro-sumer segment that yearn for more than a cheap lens + sensor in a mobile phone can give you but are not necessarily interested in spending thousands of dollars on their hobby. There are plenty of options for those people. I bought a Fuji X-T30 in 2020; a typical entry level camera for people that like to have some level of control over the whole photo taking process. It was about the same price as an iphone and it definitely takes better photos if you know what you are doing (and probably even if you don't) because of basic physics. The lenses are bigger and better. Some of the lenses you can buy are actually way more expensive than a typical iphone. Also, the sensor is bigger. It's just more light and information being gathered before destructive post processing happens. And you have more control over the process. Not for everyone. But those people still exist.
- coldtea 5y ago
  >That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. It's quite different, market-wise, as in that today that "end of the market" it's 80% smartphones, and the previous "low end of the market" for compacts is as good as dead (and even a big part of the enthusiasts that bought cheaper DSLRs in the 00s and 10s is now content with just a smartphone).
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  You don't have to spend anywhere near that money, though. When you're spending over 2000 dollars, you're at the point where you're either in a very niche category, or you're paying for convenience. At 600 dollars, you can get a full-frame Sony A7ii (used). At that point, you can get a 30$ adapter and use manual lenses, and you'll get a very competent collection from 24mm all the way to a 135mm 2.8 for an additional ~500$. This will last you forever, but you won't have any autofocus. If you want autofocus, you can spend 150$ on a used EF-E adapter, and buy a 50 1.8 for 100$, the venerable 80-200 2.8 for 400$ or so, and a normal zoom for 200-400$ (I got the Tamron 28-75 for 200$). At that point, you'll get essentially any image you could want, at a stellar quality, for 1500$ or so, with autofocus and image stabilization. Past that point, you're either trying to do something extremely specific, or paying for more convenience. The gear itself will outlast you if you don't do anything stupid with it, and you will get more image quality than you can ask for, and absolute and complete control over every step of the photographic process, for less than the price of an iPhone 13 Pro Max. And if in ten years you get tired of it, you can sell it for at least half the price you paid for it.
simonw 5y ago
Don't forget wildlife photography. I have a Canon 100-400mm lens on a DSLR and wildlife photography with it is a really rewarding hobby. Don't use it for anything else really.
- snapetom 5y ago
  Yeah, I do wildlife photography as a hobby. Cellphone cameras will never catch up, especially bird photography. That 100-400 lens will bring subjects 1/4 mile+ away right in front of you in great detail. Software can't make up for the gap in data that sensors and lenses bring.
sudosysgen 5y ago
I think your opinion is shared by a lot of people, but at the same time, "DSLR hobbyism" is alive and well, it's just shifted to Instagram. That being said, as another dilettante, I take WAY MORE pictures with my very heavy camera system (~7000 a year) than with my phone. It's because phones can't come close to the the focused experience of having a camera in your hand. As far as Good Photographs being 90% technique/framing/instinct/editing, that's true. But phones don't allow you to get near the level that's possible in those categories as an interchangeable lens camera. Let's say I want to do some street photography. On an interchangeable lens camera, I have a choice to go between 18mm to 300mm+ in focal length, and if I compensate with my position for the main subject, I can get very very different framing. I don't have this lattitude with a phone, where I can go from 13mm to 77mm, but where I have to sacrifice a lot of the little quality lattitude I have outside of three discrete positions. That's only in sunny situations. If you're inside or of it's a bit dark out, you can't use the telephoto lens, and you have a tiny native range from 13-26 or so on most phones, because the quality is so atrocious for longer focal ranges in less than stellar conditions that cropping a wide angle is better. As far as fake Bokeh, it's great for simpler portrait. However, if I want to use the defocus more subtly or in a more complex way than sharp foreground/blurry background, tough luck. This isn't hypothetical, multiple layers of depth is a good way to get a better sense of pop that just adding on more blur. Most of my all-time best photographs use mildly defocused elements in the foreground to create and organic frame for the subject, which is then followed by a slightly blurred background again. This way, you can have an organic framing of your subject without distracting from it, and creating an increased sense of depth. You say "just get closer to your subject", but that removes a lot of compositions. Your position dictates the perspective you have, and your focal length dictates your framing options. So if I have to get really close to my subject, I just lost a lot of my creative power in how I want to frame my image! Then there's instinct. When you are this limited in your freedom and creative choices, you can never fully develop your instincts. Then there's editing. To get a usable image out of a phone camera, you need a massive amount of editing that simply cannot be done by a human. As a result, you can only get a fraction of the manual editing latitude of a bigger sensor camera. The lower actual resolution also hurts your ability to edit a lot. So while I agree that Good Photos are only 10% hardware, using a phone camera means you also have a sacrifice a lot of the rest of the 90%.
dheera 5y ago
> Most people just want a shitload of bokeh There was a point in time when people wanted this because it looked professional, but now bokeh is a dime a dozen. I think these days people want it because it isolates a subject without them having to do work in thinking of a good composition that isolates the subject with other techniques (e.g. contrast, color, and so on).
- Auracle 5y ago
  It’s not always about work. When I’m shooting weddings f/1.4 is a staple because unless it’s the portrait portion of the day I have no control over the background, apart from my own positioning. The room the girls get ready in is always a disaster, for instance.
  - dheera 5y ago
    Oh yes. Been there done that. And I used to shoot a lot of other events and it was definitely helpful.
anta40 5y ago
True, for any non hobbyist, smartphone is more than sufficient. You take some pictures, do some editing, and post them to family Whatsapp group or Instagram. Mission accomplished. All done on the same pocketable gadget. Let's how the fancier Sony A7 RIV or Hasselblad XD handle that :) You want bokeh, long exposure, HDR, etc? Smartphones are obviously won't compete in image sensor size, but they have powerful CPU. Say hello to computational photography: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/ https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/ :D
dtjb 5y ago
There's a huge segment of prosumers missing from your list - aspiring content creators. If you look at the numbers someone like Peter McKinnon is putting up on youtube, you realize there are millions of people out there learning how to use mirrorless + DSLR kits for things like twitch, youtube, ecommerce, etc.
elxr 5y ago
Dedicated cameras, with all their compromises, are just more fun to use. Photography to me isn't just about the final output, but the experience getting that photo. > the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism Even though I do miss parts of that era, the mirrorless cameras we get nowadays are great, and can do so much more. Even the APS-C cameras today can do just about anything you need a camera to do, and manage to be reasonably compact.
hammock 5y ago
>Just get closer to your subject Fine advice but when combined with the distorting wide angle lenses on phones it's counterproductive
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
decafninja 5y ago
What exactly is a "good photograph"? Are we purely talking about the artistic aspects (composition, etc.) and disregarding the technical ones (sharpness, etc.)? I've seen some amazing photos done with crappy cameras (or phones - i.e. an old iPhone4). But I imagine the same photographer would take much better photos with a brand new DSLR (or mirrorless!) than with an iPhone4. ...again, unless the term "better" used in the context of these kind of discussions is supposed to disregard the technical aspects of a photograph. If I hired a top photographer big bucks to photograph my wedding, and he/she showed up with an iPhone4 saying that they are confident with it, I'd be very wary...

devbas 5y ago

Personally I really enjoy doing analog photography. As the feedback loop is very long, technique is important. Also, since the number of pictures is limited, I always have to ask myself the question: is there actually a picture here?

aparticulate 5y ago
Analog has all the tactile aspects I miss from DSLR and more, I definitely take more analog than I used to. I also think there's a noticable gulf between fake analog and real, even on screen. The most skillful photoshop creations still looks totally off to me. Phone + an old analog camera is an incredible setup imo

noahtallen 5y ago

Definitely true. I did photography as a hobby, but phones match or exceed the performance in many cases now. For example, low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs (T3/T6) by default without having to twiddle with the settings. Of course, you could get better pictures with these cameras, but it takes time and a really good lense! So in other words, it’s just not ideal for quick pictures around the house. I think there are two areas where phone cameras have a lot of room for improvement: sharpness and landscape. By sharpness, I mean that if you zoom into any phone picture, it falls apart very quickly. There is a lot of software optimization hiding how a small sensor can’t actually do that well in the details. By landscape, I mean if you take a picture of a mountain or object in the far distance, you’ll barely be able to see it in the phone because the lenses are so wide. It really makes nature pictures underwhelming :)

aparticulate 5y ago
Yeah, that's always dissapointing. Realistically, this is only an editor issue, no viewer can even zoom into a photo on Instagram etc. Even the sharpest Ansel Adams print is subject to the same JPEG compression artifacts. Not sure if the modern hobbyist/entry level print much these days. It's still so nice to zoom deep into my crisp old shots.
- anta40 5y ago
  These days, those who print their photos are usually: - Couples after finishing their pre-wedding photo sessions - Photography enthusiasts. Some even still have their own darkroom. The rest? Nahh. Printing is a waste of money. We have social medias, which are cheaper and faster.
  - timeon 5y ago
    > who print their photo Print? Who is even looking at photos after taking them. But photos are also used as input for other graphics that can be printed - which is now also less common for reasons you have already mentioned.
- petre 5y ago
  Ansel Adams and the New Topographics are meant to be seen in a museum. Or at least in a book. Definitely not on Instagram.
j1elo 5y ago
> low-light mode on phones outperforms older entry-level canon DSLRs Shouldn't you compare with modern entry-level DSLRs? Otherwise of course, you are possibly skipping all technological improvements that DSLR cameras might have received over time.
- jeremyjh 5y ago
  I think the point is more that someone who felt they needed an entry-level DSLR a few years ago can get better performance from their phone today, and doesn't need any camera.

Hamuko 5y ago

>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software) Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.

aparticulate 5y ago
It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different reasons) Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-lY6NFABUNu3ZIhB07ag:1642266074358&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw6_PvnbT1AhVvDzQIHQCzCG4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&cshid=1642266095147926&biw=1920&bih=1089&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l... ie hobbyists have very low standards.
dheera 5y ago
> Software bokeh isn't really that good though. I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount. Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF. Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis. https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera
acquacow 5y ago
The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and they are happy.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  And then people like me come along, point out how bad it looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality of software blur is changed (at least for some time).

petre 5y ago

Agreed. I like phones for photography, the image quality and the optimizations, features are great, but they have shitty ergonomics compared to a real camera. The thing with the phone is that it's always on me and that's what matters in the end. I used many cameras, film and digital from compacts to one of the best 6x7 medium format rangefinder. Just pulled the trigger on a Leica DG 15 mm for micro four thirds, which will probably be my main lens from now on.

jopsen 5y ago
It also seems to me that the future is with phones, because manufacturers keep pushing the envelope on phone camera performance. And as fewer people buy standalone cameras, research in better camera will focus on phone camera, since that's where the market is.
- petre 5y ago
  A phone camera is like a multitool. While it can replace a computer or a camera for 80% of the tasks, doing real work still requires a computer or a camera. There are also physical limitations, as in physics. You won't see too many sports or wildlife photographers doing their job with a phone, but for the majority of people who take selfies and snaps of their food, babies and cats, it's perfect. Also for the creative types and new media.

vagrantJin 5y ago

I agree. DSLR manufacturers never really took phone camera seriously. This hit me when my SO decided to buy a new IPhone over a Sony alpha for her YT channel.

ghaff 5y ago
And Canon and Nikon is particular were/are mostly hardware companies who catered to professionals desiring complete creative control. Sure, they stuck on all the various auto modes for the casual users who wanted to use a "real" camera which in all fairness gave them better results than the alternatives even if they weren't exercising a fraction of the camera's capabilities. However, with the last few generations of smartphones, it's really pretty silly to be using a DSLR with a kit lens on full auto. Even food porn or snapshots in low light--which was one of the last day-to-day things that phones really didn't do well--is remarkably good on phones these days.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

Rarely do I find a take that overlaps 100% with my own but here we are.

eyelidlessness 5y ago

nradov 5y ago

There is still also a niche market for underwater photographers. Housings are available for some smartphones now but the photos are mostly crap due to small sensors and poor integration with external strobes.

aparticulate 5y ago
Go Pro results look stunning, come in tiny housing, affordable. Anything more elaborate is no longer hobby-tier.
- petre 5y ago
  Depends on the hobby. Maybe some people have niche hobbies like using ULF cameras the size of a box truck.
  - aparticulate 5y ago
    The key word is niche. The area that these companies can ONLY afford to cater to. The Canon Rebel users of yore, taking slightly out-of-focus holiday snaps are totally lost to phones.
- nradov 5y ago
  Nope. Go Pro still images look terrible once you go deeper and lose a bit of natural light. They don't really work with external strobes either. But for video they do fine as long as you have good lights. The preferred hobby tier underwater still camera is now the Olympus TG-6 with a cheap plastic housing.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Sorry but no - if by underwater you mean diving, and not putting your hand 0.5m underwater or similar depth snorkeling. Gopro has tiny sensor and crappy lens and it shows, even if you set the bar of quality as low as phone screen-only. You can end up with reasonably nice pictures from time to time, I've ended up with dozens from all activities I've mentioned (and that's using gopro hero 2 with custom housing in the past, now newer variants), but you will lose many more moments due to rather poor device performance.

UncleMeat 5y ago

It is also true that hobbyists love gadget, even if they don’t really change their hobby capabilities.

ghaff 5y ago

I joke that the number of photos I take is inversely proportional to the expense of my camera system. I shoot most of my photos on my iPhone these days. I sometimes use my Fuji mirrorless system that I have a few lenses for if I want to be a little more serious on a trip--or I'm taking photos for an event, and I have a Full-frame Canon with both very wide and very long glass that I rarely use these days.

jpablo 5y ago

Another big market for dslrs is studio photography. I haven’t come across speedlite/studio strobes that can sync with a phone (tbh I haven’t looked either!) A pro camera with a speedlite pointed at a white ceiling world produce amazing indoor pics everytime, unlike a phone which would be dependent on ambient light quality.

domy 5y ago

I find that the experience of taking photos with an actual camera (be it mirrorless or DSLR) is vastly more engaging and enjoyable than with a phone.

selectodude 5y ago
I agree entirely. However the experience of lugging around a camera bag is vastly less enjoyable.
- alexashka 5y ago
  Look into something like a Fujifilm X100V or Leica Q2 (depending on your budget) A camera should be nice and compact, then it won't be a hassle to have it with you. The problem with modern cameras is they are heavy, bulky, junk build quality, have awful menu systems and don't play nice with your phone or your computer. What a wombo-combo of pain, just to get a nice photo! If you can afford a Q2, all of those problems are addressed. Modern cameras are like writing corporate software in Java. Leica Q2 is like writing short programs in Python. Phones are like using Squarespace to build a website.
  - lovehashbrowns 5y ago
    Hm, I quite like your analogy! I actually just got into photography not too long ago with an R5. Thinking about it now, it really does feel some sorta "corporate." I also considered the fujifilm xt4, all the reviews make me feel as if that'd be a Pythonic kind of camera. After falling in love with the whole photography universe, I hope one day I can experience the COBOL-like world of film. I did grow up when film was around, in the 90s and all that, but my family was too poor and I only ever messed around with disposable cameras and Polaroids. Polaroids themselves are a whole other insanely awesome universe to explore.
- grujicd 5y ago
  I find the experience of going trough 300 raw images and developing them the worst part of using DSLR and why I prefer modern phones with AI based image processing. But you can’t argue with dslr results though. And when we talk about pro sport photography, well exactly same demands for large aperture, large and variable focal length, high iso with low noise, fast focusing and fast shooter speeds also apply to us amateurs taking pictures of our kids in poorly lit indoor sport events.

yakubin 5y ago

Until you hate noise. Noise makes phones a non-starter (the sensor is too small). Or until you're in non-standard lighting conditions, like a dark night. A year ago I found a mantis on my balcony[1]. I tried to make photos of it with my phone and my compact camera, and all of them were crap due to noise. Several months later I bought myself a DSLR and now I can take pretty good photos in very different lighting conditions. I plan to go further in that direction still and get myself a full-frame camera to get even better photos. Also, stabilising a full-blown camera in hands is a lot easier than stabilising a smartphone. [1]: Mantises aren't really a thing in this part of the world.

pomian 5y ago
I was just reading Master and Commander series of books. There is a great scene where Maturin (the surgeon/naturalist) is taking notes while watching a pair of Mantis's mate; they continue while the female bites off the male's head. Now that's the photo we hope you capture!

vmception 5y ago

This isn't about killing off interchangeable lens cameras that look like DSLRs, its about killing off actual DSLRs Theyre just getting rid of the inferior mirror technology, the thing that flips in front of the sensor, not conceding to phones The entire sony a7 line, for example, is still going to be made its kind of a troll discussion but its a good thing to happen because SLRs have been associated with a look or form factor too long and its time for that ambiguity and term to die.

skwirl 5y ago

Completely agree. My DSLR is mostly gathering dust these days - the things I bought it for that phones could not do well at the time were primarily landscapes, low-light photography, and wildlife. My current phone has a wide angle lens that does a great job with landscapes. Phones over the last few years have gotten very good at low light. DSLRs still win here, but not by enough to make it worth lugging around (with a tripod, too). Wildlife is my only remaining use case where the DSLR is still the only viable option as I generally can't get very close to the subject. This seems too niche to keep an entire market afloat, though. I'll also still lug the DSLR out if I have a shot planned out that I want to nail or when I'm asked to take photos of someone's kid. Having the ability to work with raw gives a lot of options for fixing lighting and colors. Today's phones do a fantastic job of getting you 80% of the way there automatically, though.

pkulak 5y ago

Phones have surely gotten better, but boy have they gotten bigger. The iPhone Pro Max is more than halfway to the weight of a X100V, and only 100 grams lighter than my Olympus. I still like having a small phone with me all the time and a camera sometimes. It's nice to not have to have the greatest camera phone available because it's all you're going to shoot with. Plus, phones are just never going to manage decent shots on any focal length that's not wide as hell. I know they have long lenses now, but they are crazy slow and useless in anything but direct sunlight. I mostly take photos of people and almost never choose to shoot wide. Phones cut me right out of how I want to shoot. I've actually started putting a long prime on my camera and using my phone at the same time if I want a landscape. Works pretty darn well.

spoonjim 5y ago

It’s true that most people switched because convenience and marginal cost usually beats quality. That’s how we went from landlines to “can you hear me now.” But I have the latest iPhone and a low end SLR and the SLR blows it out of the water for photos of my kids. All but one of the photos on our wall are from the SLR even though 90% of our overall photos are from the SLR.

0xbadcafebee 5y ago

40x optical zoom point-and-shoot, baby! The only reason I have a dedicated camera anymore. I keep it in a little belt pouch when I'm traveling or even hiking. I want to capture moments, but I don't want it to be my hobby.

jillesvangurp 5y ago

That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. I had one (a Kodak) and I knew absolutely nothing about photography. Point, click, bring the film roll to the store, and whatever you got back was it. Not very different from giving full control to Apple/Google over the creative outcome. And they do a decent job of course. They do some amazing things with the very limited sensors and lenses that these cameras have. But there are limits to that of course. Pro cameras start at a few thousand dollars. Clearly not for everyone but they always were that expensive. And that's before you consider the lenses. The type of person that spends 2000 dollar on a lens that only works in very specific situations is never going to be satisfied by an iphone. Most amateurs with ambition fall into the pro-sumer segment that yearn for more than a cheap lens + sensor in a mobile phone can give you but are not necessarily interested in spending thousands of dollars on their hobby. There are plenty of options for those people. I bought a Fuji X-T30 in 2020; a typical entry level camera for people that like to have some level of control over the whole photo taking process. It was about the same price as an iphone and it definitely takes better photos if you know what you are doing (and probably even if you don't) because of basic physics. The lenses are bigger and better. Some of the lenses you can buy are actually way more expensive than a typical iphone. Also, the sensor is bigger. It's just more light and information being gathered before destructive post processing happens. And you have more control over the process. Not for everyone. But those people still exist.

coldtea 5y ago
>That's the low end of the market basically. It's no different than picking up a cheap compact camera a few decades ago. It's quite different, market-wise, as in that today that "end of the market" it's 80% smartphones, and the previous "low end of the market" for compacts is as good as dead (and even a big part of the enthusiasts that bought cheaper DSLRs in the 00s and 10s is now content with just a smartphone).
sudosysgen 5y ago
You don't have to spend anywhere near that money, though. When you're spending over 2000 dollars, you're at the point where you're either in a very niche category, or you're paying for convenience. At 600 dollars, you can get a full-frame Sony A7ii (used). At that point, you can get a 30$ adapter and use manual lenses, and you'll get a very competent collection from 24mm all the way to a 135mm 2.8 for an additional ~500$. This will last you forever, but you won't have any autofocus. If you want autofocus, you can spend 150$ on a used EF-E adapter, and buy a 50 1.8 for 100$, the venerable 80-200 2.8 for 400$ or so, and a normal zoom for 200-400$ (I got the Tamron 28-75 for 200$). At that point, you'll get essentially any image you could want, at a stellar quality, for 1500$ or so, with autofocus and image stabilization. Past that point, you're either trying to do something extremely specific, or paying for more convenience. The gear itself will outlast you if you don't do anything stupid with it, and you will get more image quality than you can ask for, and absolute and complete control over every step of the photographic process, for less than the price of an iPhone 13 Pro Max. And if in ten years you get tired of it, you can sell it for at least half the price you paid for it.

simonw 5y ago

Don't forget wildlife photography. I have a Canon 100-400mm lens on a DSLR and wildlife photography with it is a really rewarding hobby. Don't use it for anything else really.

snapetom 5y ago
Yeah, I do wildlife photography as a hobby. Cellphone cameras will never catch up, especially bird photography. That 100-400 lens will bring subjects 1/4 mile+ away right in front of you in great detail. Software can't make up for the gap in data that sensors and lenses bring.

sudosysgen 5y ago

I think your opinion is shared by a lot of people, but at the same time, "DSLR hobbyism" is alive and well, it's just shifted to Instagram. That being said, as another dilettante, I take WAY MORE pictures with my very heavy camera system (~7000 a year) than with my phone. It's because phones can't come close to the the focused experience of having a camera in your hand. As far as Good Photographs being 90% technique/framing/instinct/editing, that's true. But phones don't allow you to get near the level that's possible in those categories as an interchangeable lens camera. Let's say I want to do some street photography. On an interchangeable lens camera, I have a choice to go between 18mm to 300mm+ in focal length, and if I compensate with my position for the main subject, I can get very very different framing. I don't have this lattitude with a phone, where I can go from 13mm to 77mm, but where I have to sacrifice a lot of the little quality lattitude I have outside of three discrete positions. That's only in sunny situations. If you're inside or of it's a bit dark out, you can't use the telephoto lens, and you have a tiny native range from 13-26 or so on most phones, because the quality is so atrocious for longer focal ranges in less than stellar conditions that cropping a wide angle is better. As far as fake Bokeh, it's great for simpler portrait. However, if I want to use the defocus more subtly or in a more complex way than sharp foreground/blurry background, tough luck. This isn't hypothetical, multiple layers of depth is a good way to get a better sense of pop that just adding on more blur. Most of my all-time best photographs use mildly defocused elements in the foreground to create and organic frame for the subject, which is then followed by a slightly blurred background again. This way, you can have an organic framing of your subject without distracting from it, and creating an increased sense of depth. You say "just get closer to your subject", but that removes a lot of compositions. Your position dictates the perspective you have, and your focal length dictates your framing options. So if I have to get really close to my subject, I just lost a lot of my creative power in how I want to frame my image! Then there's instinct. When you are this limited in your freedom and creative choices, you can never fully develop your instincts. Then there's editing. To get a usable image out of a phone camera, you need a massive amount of editing that simply cannot be done by a human. As a result, you can only get a fraction of the manual editing latitude of a bigger sensor camera. The lower actual resolution also hurts your ability to edit a lot. So while I agree that Good Photos are only 10% hardware, using a phone camera means you also have a sacrifice a lot of the rest of the 90%.

dheera 5y ago

> Most people just want a shitload of bokeh There was a point in time when people wanted this because it looked professional, but now bokeh is a dime a dozen. I think these days people want it because it isolates a subject without them having to do work in thinking of a good composition that isolates the subject with other techniques (e.g. contrast, color, and so on).

Auracle 5y ago
It’s not always about work. When I’m shooting weddings f/1.4 is a staple because unless it’s the portrait portion of the day I have no control over the background, apart from my own positioning. The room the girls get ready in is always a disaster, for instance.
- dheera 5y ago
  Oh yes. Been there done that. And I used to shoot a lot of other events and it was definitely helpful.

anta40 5y ago

True, for any non hobbyist, smartphone is more than sufficient. You take some pictures, do some editing, and post them to family Whatsapp group or Instagram. Mission accomplished. All done on the same pocketable gadget. Let's how the fancier Sony A7 RIV or Hasselblad XD handle that :) You want bokeh, long exposure, HDR, etc? Smartphones are obviously won't compete in image sensor size, but they have powerful CPU. Say hello to computational photography: https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/ https://vas3k.com/blog/computational_photography/ :D

dtjb 5y ago

There's a huge segment of prosumers missing from your list - aspiring content creators. If you look at the numbers someone like Peter McKinnon is putting up on youtube, you realize there are millions of people out there learning how to use mirrorless + DSLR kits for things like twitch, youtube, ecommerce, etc.

elxr 5y ago

Dedicated cameras, with all their compromises, are just more fun to use. Photography to me isn't just about the final output, but the experience getting that photo. > the golden age of late 00s DSLR Flickr hobbyism Even though I do miss parts of that era, the mirrorless cameras we get nowadays are great, and can do so much more. Even the APS-C cameras today can do just about anything you need a camera to do, and manage to be reasonably compact.

hammock 5y ago

>Just get closer to your subject Fine advice but when combined with the distorting wide angle lenses on phones it's counterproductive

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

decafninja 5y ago

What exactly is a "good photograph"? Are we purely talking about the artistic aspects (composition, etc.) and disregarding the technical ones (sharpness, etc.)? I've seen some amazing photos done with crappy cameras (or phones - i.e. an old iPhone4). But I imagine the same photographer would take much better photos with a brand new DSLR (or mirrorless!) than with an iPhone4. ...again, unless the term "better" used in the context of these kind of discussions is supposed to disregard the technical aspects of a photograph. If I hired a top photographer big bucks to photograph my wedding, and he/she showed up with an iPhone4 saying that they are confident with it, I'd be very wary...